Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.
It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
Like Static said, it's entertainment, either way you look at it.
the similarity is that there is far more content for a subscriber than there is for a free user.
For the bolded bit, I'm going to draw on my current game SWTOR.
Free players have access to the Standard missions, the story Line, 3 races and all classes (if memory serves on the latter), with a measly 2 character slots out of a maximum of 22. They're chat limited, End Game Content Limited, Gear Restricted and as poorly executed as it is, restricted from using titles, Color Unity, Hide Head slot, all of which is purely cosmetic and should be available to everyone. and limited on the number of times general chat can be used, and a severe credit cap (which is FAR too low)
Premium/Preferred Status Players: Are under most of the same restrictions, to a lesser degree in some cases.
Subs, have access to everything, unrestricted.
And in some cases, are required to make market purchases as well if they want certain content. Such as the beastly little treek, an ewok Mercenary. Random Dye packs or cosmetic options (hair style/color, eye color, skin color) or their version of the lockbox. Of course, most items are unmodified (bare bones stats (lvl 1, in most cases), until you put your mods in the item) Even the Cathar Race is purchase only. (I dumped hundreds into the market, because I was too lazy to level each race up to 50, to unlock them for unrestricted use, and other account wide perks)
But I think I trailed off on that, so i'll just stop here.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
Absolutely. You want to make a lot of fast money, go F2P. You want to alienate your player base and tick them off, go F2P. If all you care about is making money and lots of it, go F2P. I agree 100%.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Could do a subscription model with a $1 a day option. Not going to play today? No need to play! Want to play today? Pay a dollar, play during that 24hour period from when you purchased the 1 day ticket till the clock winds down 24 hours later (real time, not played time).
While I disagree that players would be alienated and/or ticked off with free to play.. I have to ask.. what is bad about the game developers having revenue? Specifically what's wrong with making a lot of money? What's wrong with making money in shorter intervals?
Beyond that you're misrepresenting my position, the question of what is "bad" or "wrong" about the position as you present it.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
There's nothing wrong with MWM making money in the long run. I simply believe that you believe that's their PRIMARY motivation creating this game. Unfortunately for you it isn't.
If you can accept the premise that MWM's number one goal is NOT making money (I'll grant you it might be 2nd or 3rd on their list) then I think you'll be more able to accept there are in fact financial strategies out there that are more favorable/friendly to customers than they might be for the net profits of the company in question.
I realize from a pure capitalism point of view it probably isn't completely intuitive to some people, but I firmly believe MWM would rather err on the side of making us the players as happy as possible even if it's at the expense of maximizing profits for themselves. I really have no doubt they'll eventually make as much money as they NEED to operate and innovate, even if it might not be the absolute maximum amount that they COULD make assuming they were only in it for the cash-grab.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Your beliefs and assumptions about my understanding and desires are incorrect.
- -
More revenue = More development.
- -
Conversely how much money should Missing Worlds Media turn down?
Should they also not share in the equity of the profits of their company and only pay themselves "this much" because any more is "greed"?
Should users expect ALL development to be volunteer or have salaries capped? What effect does this have on attracting future talent? On keeping the talent motivated?
Business is business. I've said before, if Missing Worlds Media meant to incorporate as a 501c3 they would have done so..
This idea that business is bad for consumers is a fallacy. Consumers hold the power of the purse. If someone supplies something that you desire at a price you like you make a choice to buy it.
If the game was not intended to survive in a capitalist market then I'm sure they could have petitioned the government of a communist nation for the money they need to develop the game. But since this company exists in a capitalist market and intends to survive against the other competition of companies that are also capitalists then they cannot be afforded the luxury of thinking they are anything different.
- -
After being in a position of weakness (a product, City of Heroes, that was deemed an economic failure and closed - albeit by a third party) I have trouble seeing why is it demonized that I advocate that the company seek a position of strength.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
The beautiful thing about this is that I no longer need to argue with you. They have already said they are going to use a Subscription type model and therefore any more argument is invalid and moot. You have dug your heels in so hard about your stance that you refuse to see any other way it should be done besides yours. You refuse to see what others are trying to tell you about why it should not be done. There is nothing anybody can say at this point that will ever change your mind or your stance, so I'm no longer even going to try to entertain the idea.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Once again it's clear that your "understanding and desires" on this subject are that the only thing that should be important to MWM is making as much money as possible, players be damned. You obviously believe in the simple-minded ideal that more money for MWM will automatically make it a "success" and will translate into a game that everyone will want to play.
You also keep assuming what I'm advocating is that MWM be completely 100% non-profit or somehow "communist" oriented - nothing could be further from the truth. It seems totally alien to you that there might be a group of people out there who would rather focus on creating a good product FIRST before they worry about lighting their cigars with $100 bills.
You seem to think that the only chance MWM has with this game is for them to grab as much cash as instantly as possible like money is all it takes to write good software. Once again you're going to have to trust my 20 years of professional software development experience to tell you there is no guarantee you'll get the best software product by just throwing excessive money at it - in fact more often than not the exact opposite is true.
I'm sorry you're convinced that CoH was considered an "economic failure" and are paranoid CoT will also be considered a similar failure. The only reason NCsoft dropped CoH was that it wasn't making ENOUGH money as a part of the greater corporate structure of NCsoft. Had CoH not have to live up to the expectations of a greater corporate entity it'd probably still be around today. Just because NCsoft decided CoH was not making enough extra profit for them does not mean it wasn't making sufficient money for the continued operation and maintenance of the game by itself. Fortunately since MWM does not currently have to live up to the net profit making expectations of some greater corporate overlord it will not have to meet the huge profit goals you seem to think are required here.
I have always said I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with MWM earning a profit with this game. I have NEVER once claimed that making a profit was "greedy" or that the MWM folks should have their "salaries capped" or any such nonsense. I simply suspect they'll make this game in a way that has more long-term goals in mind rather than your desperate notion that they must be willing to employ non-customer friendly tactics to maximize their coffers as instantly as possible.
If nothing else I've said here sinks in then consider this: If MWM needed as much money as it could get as quickly as it could get it why haven't they asked for any more in the better part of four months? I'll answer that for you - they know they'll get their profits in due time and in a way that'll be the most acceptable to their customers in the long run.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Very well said Lothic.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
My position:
My concern is that CoT will not have the start up capital that is required to actually launch the game. Making a product and launching a product for consumption are two different goals. I am not privy to the information that the company has planned for either goal, but I do know that the revenue they have reported is not sufficient. Therefore I offer to them that traditional financing though venture capital is a great possible route to gain that capital. IF they desire to keep the venture capital financing as an option, then the subscription model is unattractive to financiers.
Any assumption of my position outside what I've expressly written above is your assumption.
- -
My issue with your position is such that:
Your position that you have no issue with the company earning a profit is not consistent with your assertion that CoT should not seek to maximize their revenue over time.
Making "sufficient money" is not competitive. Capitalism is based on competition. This game does not exist in a bubble and must remain competitive (or at least have the mindset to be financially competitive) to have a product that is sustainable in a capitalist market. This is the point I'm trying to make. Making the argument that we should not have a "pure capitalistic" mindset is moot because that is the water in which we are now in. The question now is will we sink, swim, or sail.
- -
My reconciliation of our positions:
We are both of the understanding that the goal is to have a great product that consumers and providers are both happy to be apart of. This includes having a well designed game, having talented industry professionals to support and design for the game, and have a financially viable future so that the game's stability is sound for the foreseeable future. I do value your insight as a software developer, but development is only one of the issues a company faces; there are still many issues (insurance, legal, maintenance, payroll, etc) that do require money and surplus for any company to truly thrive. As of yet many of these issues have gone largely unaddressed (at least to the public), and perhaps they will stay behind the scenes. Beyond the outside factors it has always been my experience that getting great talent is much easier when you can pay them great salaries. You can't throw money at every problem, but having money puts you in a position of strength where more options are available to you. This is not greed as you personify it, it is smart business.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
So how did "what will make a subscription worth buying?" turn into a socioeconomic debate?
Though I don't really like Real Money Stores in the least for individual content, if its gonna be there then I would like to see the idea mentioned, when someone was actually on subject, about paying something like $15 a month and receiving a portion of it back to use in the in game store.
My reasoning is this;
-We don't want to have cash transactions making a player so much stronger that it eventually becomes the standard power level, if that happens it would alienate all the people who are either unable or unwilling to shell out extra money to be in the same league as the players that p2w
-On the flip side though, we don't want the game to be all grinding so that even if a player possesses no 'skill' with their toon but simply because they are a high level they can pwn everyone. Yes higher level should be stronger of course but someone 3 or 4 levels above me just clicking their powers in a random order and having on no buffs shouldn't be THAT much stronger
20041004-20120910
How can you authoritatively draw that conclusion when you literally just said you aren't privy to all the information you'd need to reach that conclusion? I'm still convinced you believe there is only one "corporate venture capital" based path to success for MWM. How many times do we have to tell you this is NOT the strict path MWM is on?
Once again "traditional financing" does not appear to be the path they'll be taking (or needing) with this.
Since "faceless third-party financiers" won't appear to be involved what any of them might think about MWM is moot.
Again your hardwired mindset is that "profit earning" assumes MWM's only purpose in life is to maximize profits to the exclusion of all other concerns. Does it truly baffle you that their goal is FIRST to produce the game we all want to play and only after that to make ANY net profits above and beyond what it'll take to make that game happen?
For what it's worth I hope MWM will be able to announce in 2025 that they've made (to pick a hypothetical number) $50 million in net profits. But if for some reason they only make $30 million by 2025 will you come along and somehow claim that MWM was a "total failure" because they didn't make the estimated $50 million they might theoretically have been capable of? The goal is the game, not some number on a financial spreadsheet. Frankly I'm pretty sure the MWM folks would rather have their $30 million in 2025 than to have been out of business for years by then because everyone hated their unfriendly revenue strategies.
As far a "competition" goes the only real games CoT will directly compete against are other Superhero MMOs. This game is not going to "compete" against WoW or most other big-name MMOs so there's no reason to pretend that it will. As long as CoT can offer a unique gameplay experience and do it in an efficient, self-sustaining way it'll succeed in the only goal it has set for itself.
Bottomline CoT does not need to aspire to be a WoW-killer for it to be a successful "spiritual successor" to CoH.
No one is saying that MWM should not be as profitable as possible. You just refuse to accept the idea that MWM is willing to have those profits come at a slower, more sustainable pace than might be normally expected of a company whose ONLY true goal is to satisfy shareholders.
I highly doubt MWM will ever bother to highlight the gritty business details vis-a-vis how they're going to cover their overhead and maintenance costs, at least to us the average players. Until I see/hear otherwise I will give MWM the benefit of the doubt that they'll be able to handle these standard business issues accordingly.
One more time I have NEVER asserted that MWM is attempting to be "greedy" or that it's "greedy" for a company to want to make a profit. I never even used the word "greed" in this thread until I chose to respond to your use of it. That seems to be a loaded term/concept you're attached to because once again you can't seem to conceive of the notion of a group of people wanting to make a great game (and some profit on the side) as opposed to blindly only making a profit regardless of the product.
MWM will be in a "position of strength" if it's still around 5 or 10 years from now with a great game that has a loyal following. That's the kind of game that attracts the grassroots talent this game is founded on as opposed to folks only looking for a fat paycheck. If "fat paychecks" were the ony thing that's important how do you explain all the good people who've worked on this game for over a year for free? Clearly "earning big money instantly" isn't the primary motivator here. Being in a position of strength will not be an option if MWM is either long gone or only known as that sad little game company that desperately tries to milk its playerbase for money at the expense of everything else.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
Actually they said hybrid model.
Though I think my idea of a 15 a month sub w/ stipend and a 1 dollar for a 24hour time period (not 24 hours in game, but one dollar equals play from when you paid till 24 hours after that time) sub would be great way to have people going "I play as much as I want today for just one dollar!"
Then do like CoH, some new costume sets are free to everyone, others are put into the cash shop. Possibly an every other set deal. Same with power sets/animations (however CoT works with this). Add in little boosts too...bigger heal inspirations, credit and xp boosts, etc etc.
This type of system is rather hard to administrate. Are you viewing a prepayment of "dollars" into your subscription account and then the time is removed from that prepaid pool? How will you administer the timer? Set 12:01AM-12:00 time zone.. is that fair? A "you have 24 hours from this login until you are charged for another 24 hours"? This may encourage players to "hoard" their playtime to say just weekends..
For any billing you are required to give a receipt. This is much less batch programming if the billing cycle is over 30 days or for a specified period (the first of the month to the last day of the month).
I've worked with Bank of America on their batch programming for their credit cards (a program that runs once a day and handles ALL of the transactions per day) and this is extremely expensive. I've also worked with a credit reporting website (CreditKarma) where the billing is once per 30 day billing cycle and this is much cheaper to administrate.
There is nothing practically wrong with your price structure but the necessary financial reporting seems to far outweigh any benefit of a daily subscription model.
- -
I am not going to specifically respond to your restating of your assumption on my position, Lothic. However, you are introducing a new claim that subscriptions are "more sustainable" revenue than F2P micro-transactions. This has been proven not to be the case.
The revenue is slower; the revenue is smaller; and there's no evidence that it is more sustainable (at least none that you cite in your argument)
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Your position here is pretty straightforward. I'm not really having to "assume" anything about it.
I'm not really making a "new" claim. You're just not seeing the big picture here.
I'll put it to you as plainly as I can:
1) MWM's main goal is to create a spiritual successor to CoH. Profit for them is an important but ultimately tangential goal.
2) Subscriptions are just about as close to "guaranteed" money for a MMO company as you can get. Obviously no company can force players to make purchases from month to month they don't want to. But it's utterly obvious that players who are paying for something on a subscription basis are far more likely to pay for that for multiple months in a row than players who are not "bound" by any such conventions (i.e. F2P players).
3) So while I'll grant you that subscriptions may lead to "slower/smaller" revenue streams they are far more "bankable" as solid predictable revenue from month to month. Any financial person in the world who wants to play things safe would rather back something that has guaranteed revenue streams versus the chaotic F2P models.
Ultimately I think your problem here is that you're blinded by the "shiny" expectations of F2P's potential for generating more money than subscription based models. What you're overlooking is the fundamental volatility of not being able to forecast how much F2P income you're going to get month to month versus the relative stability of subscriptions.
I'll grant you that the basic motivation of any generic capitalistic business is to make as much money as possible. Under that paradigm your championship of the F2P model for MMOs does indeed have merit. What you keep missing is the fact that MWM is not primarily in it for the money, or at least not in it for the money the way you're used to. Once you realize that key difference then you'll understand why utilizing the slower but steadier subscription model is among the more sensible choices for the primary goal MWM is pursuing here.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I usually do not go back and forth on things but I will say this:
Please do not make assumptions on my position, character or desires. It only serves to distance the divide between your assertions and the common ground of which the devs are seeking. If/when the argument is made on the merits of what has been expressed then objectivity is more valuable and attainable.
Secondarily, simply restating your position or argument to support your position without additional evidence or elaboration. Simply "saying" that subscriptions are "steadier" without any elaboration to support this claim is not moving the debate forward. I do not wish to engage in any "Nuh Unh" and "Un Hunh" arguments.
Yes this particular is off topic but it goes a long way to further my goals of intelligent discourse.
- -
Scipio I obviously think that the primary revenue model is extremely relevant to the question of "What makes subscriptions have worth/value". I do not think the topic (while it has somehow moved from what kind of subscriptions work better) is out of line with the intention of the thread.
Specifically to get this thread back in line with the original purpose I’ll repost my definition of what makes subscriptions valuable both to the consumer and to the developers:
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I'm just going to be blunt and ask you this: Do you even know what HYBRID model is? It's the combination of TWO things into a single component/machine/what-have-you. In this case Free to play AND Subscription Models.
Number 1: if you think Monetizing EVERYTHING developed for EVERYONE is fair. You'd be wrong. Subscribers and Free to Play players are not equals. This also makes the whole "debate" about having the option of subscribing pointless, if you're just going to make subscribers buy everything anyhow.
It's like offering a free copy of the Swimsuit Edtion (quarterly), with your subscription, but making you pay for the SE anyhow.
Number 2: Example: You are buying a car, (just assume you're not rich, and have...average to low credit). Fail to pay those "dues", do you keep your car? Nope. Repo-man comes a creepin. If you're [b]lucky[/b], the car company/Financer will let you come get your belongings. The same applies to subscribers, why should you keep what you're not paying or paid for?
Number 3: Nothing to say about it, because that's about the only reasonable thing in that post I saw.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
I won't lie Jaybezz, I have no idea if this causes extra costs. :p I don't work for a bank, though using my debit card for a dollar has never caused me extra costs. *shrugs*
But the system would be from as soon as the purchase was authorized until 24 hours later.
My response to your rebuttal:
1) I do think monetizing everything that is developed is fair. In fact I think it's unfair to the developers if they have a policy of putting in payroll hours to develop if that development is later going to be given no/low value. And there should be premium things that even subscribers should need to buy.
2) In one of the "micro subscription" models I hypothesized (Post #199) I stated specifically that paying for a subscription should give you access to all of the non-premium perks. But the problem for player retention comes when you have not paid your subscription the threshold for returning/buying in again. If you intend to say this is not a problem, I disagree. User exodus is a huge (if not the largest) problem for online service products. My proposed solution is not the only solution but to simply accept that you don't want to attract people who have left to come back and try your product then you and I have a more fundamental difference in position than I'd thought.
- -
Just because there is a hybrid model does not mean that the definition of subscriptions are as you define them. Brand X proposes a time based micro transaction model which while impractical does present its perks. There are issues with it sure but it just goes to show that the idea of a $15 dollar a month subscription vs a micro transaction is not the only thing being debated.
When user populations are comparatively small/medium sizes the amount of revenue per customer needed to stay competitive is not the same. $15 dollars per user/month for 200,000 users is not the same as it is for 1.2M users. Many users don't understand that and have not been willing to have slower/smaller development without leaving for something "better". So either charge more than $15 per user/month or stay uncompetitive. I don't like games that are not competitive.
- -
I'm going to take this as a chance to explain why some things can "seem" free that cost a lot of money. And the reasons banks can "give away" services is two pronged:
1) User Base - Banks have very large subscribers and have made modern living rather difficult without using them.
2) Investment - By allowing the banks to use your money they use it to to make money. In many ways by lending your money to the bank they take ALL your money and only really allow you to use it until you ask for it back. I say this as a personal rant against large banks and hope to shore up peoples belief in small/private enterprise. Go talk to your local credit union about how your money can help your community.
.. while prong two is definitely not relevant to the conversation… Prong one goes to show what having a large user base can afford.
I know.. I never miss a chance to "make a point".
Crowd Control Enthusiast
You do realize you just proved a point as to how $15.00 per month/user would work for MWM? If we take your 200,000 user example MWM just made 3 million dollars that month and 36 million dollars for that year. For MWM to make 5 million dollars a year using a $15.00 per month/user subscription package they would only need 27,778 users paying $15.00 per month to play the game. Now granted that is not taking into consideration taxes and expenditures, but if I recall CoH had over 120,000 subscribers by the time it was shut down. So, again, how does a subscription based model fail here? Even if CoT only attracts half of what CoH had they'd still be making over 10 million dollars a year.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Some of it will come down to employee pay, figuring when the game goes live it will stop being a volunteer project and those who remain on will be paid employees.
Then costs of server and their licensing fees, server costs, etc etc.
Basically it'll come down to figuring out what the minimum amount they need to make to pay everything and keep going, with everything else being profit that can be used in other stuff (hire more? bonuses? just keeping it in the bank for rainy days?)
Your understanding of how far $10M goes and mine are very different. I am currently financial liason for a service based company making around $3.5M per year in revenue. They have under 30 employees. Their profit comes from selling their time, similarly to developers. They work at a very generous 30% profit margin, do not have a dedicated legal team, have regulated insurances that are slightly less than what is required for online commerce. Of that $3.5M revenue per year the company turns profit of only around 400,000. This is okay for their business model as they are not in a very competitive industry (nothing like gaming).. so slow/stagnant company growth is not damning.
At this particular company the pay rates are below the regional industry median pay and the talent they sell is considerably less skilled than their union counterparts. So these are workers who are not motivated and incentivised and I see it on their faces every time I do an office visit.
I don't have the metrics of what is "enough" and considered "success" by MWM, but the assumption that revenue is profit is not the case. Especially in a start-up.
Game design is a technical skill based industry. Pay rates are higher and competition is more intense. I simply want people who are advocating for the "slower, lesser" fiscal policy to understand that less is less and nothing exists in a bubble. If pool has less and another pool has more, people gravitate toward the "more" pool.
- -
If you think I'm making the case that $15 subscriptions are enough then there has been some serious loss in communication. If it's on the sender, myself, I will try to elaborate, but if the receiver is where the loss occurs I'll leave it.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
If 120k subscribers at $15.00 per month was enough to keep Paragon Studios going and still working on Development for future issues to CoH, I would assume that the same could be said for MWM. CoH wasn't shut down because it wasn't turning a profit and making money, it was shut down because NCSoft didn't deem it worth while to keep going because of their future plans with their future MMO's, which failed and they ended up shutting down as well, they were desperately wanting to push. Also because they wanted to cater to their Eastern demographic and get away from the Western demographic. So don't give me this crap about a $15.00 a month subscription isn't "enough" to be considered a "success" by MWM. You don't know that it isn't.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
THe last thing I meant to open up was a debate of "why CoH was closed". They lead no where.
I am saying that the game was not competitive. "A Profit" is not the same as "Competitive". If the game was competitive with the market at large it would still be here.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
*slight* derail, but according to what Mercedes Lackey said over on the Titan Network, CoX only had 40K subscribers at the time of closure (20K premium players, and 40K F2P on top)... so roughly 60K players who paid *anything* towards the game.
It was quite a few years back when CoX had 120K players....
Further derail, but they were taking more money off those 60K payers than when they had rather more pure subscribers.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
While the CoH subscription was only $14.99 per month, I would gladly pay $20 per month for some sort of return. Having been a loyal player of CoH for 7.5 years...if there is a group out there that is attempting to revive this environment/experience I'm here to support that and if an extra $5 per month breaks me then I need to reconsider working 15 hour days 6 days a week. The environment and the new powerset and perks in CoH, but, that's not what brought about they loyalty of CoH/CoV players...relationships evolved and it was an amazing place to go when the rest of the world was asleep or you were snowed in or feeling under the weather...an experience well worth $20 a month!
Perhaps the monthly subscription fee could be re-evaluated once CoT had an established player base...but, it certainly needs to be supported in the beginning...
Not *quite* true. They did for the first quarter of Freedom (which is when I would assume that most people just lumped cash down for points immediately), but this was *not* a sustained increase in earnings though.
2011 CoX earnings (in Millions Korean Won)
Q1: 3051
Q2: 2787
Q3: 2812
Q4: 3435
2012 CoX earnings (in Millions Korean Won)
Q1: 2890
Q2: 2855
Q3: No figures, was included in "Others" category of the NCsoft financial report. Hard to say as to what the figures would be.
Freedom was released at the *very* tail end of Q3 2011, so most of the money increase could be seen earnt during the Q4 of 2011 (which explains the increase in earnings).
And due to currency fluctuations during that period of time, I would say that the earnings were *about* the same (within 5%). If there was a *loss* in earnings, then it could possibly have been due to currency fluctuations, if there was an increase in earnings, it could be due to currency fluctuations.
I would say that freedom actually *did* slow down the decline in earnings, but for how long is hard to say.... or if it was within the projections that Paragon Studios were expecting.
Actually those figures are close to meaningless in that there was some accounting trickery going on with when and how revenue was allotted to CoH. My accounts had 6000+ points bought and paid for but unused at shutdown. The money for those was NOT allocated as CoH revenue.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Evidence for that please.
And whilst you might have had 6000+ points on your account, was that what you had *purely* spent? Or did that also include the 550/month that you were getting for being a Tier 9 VIP (and if you were not Tier 9, then 400/month).
I know that there was a case of that apparently with NCCoin, that points for those games would only get attributed towards Aion or Lineage 2 when they got used, because you could use the coins with EITHER game. You could have an Aion account, buy $50 of coin, and then open up a Lineage 2 account and THEN spend those coins in Lineage 2.
Please note: I say *apparently*. The only place that I have seen this mentioned was over on the Titan Network forums, and just once.
It just makes sense to do it that way for those games where they have a *shared* economy.
But it would confuse me as to why Ncsoft would actually do this for a currency that would only have one game available to spend it on.
The same could be said for Guild Wars 2 and gem sales in that not all gem purchases are immediately accounted for until they are sold on the ingame market or used to buy stuff off their In Game store...
So whilst some former CoXers are using the argument that Guild Wars 2 is *failing* (due to a decline in earnings, although it has already made more cash than CoX did in its lifetime), we can use the *exact* same argument to show that it isn't showing as much money because of Ncsoft "dodgy accounting".
I may have had more by the end, that was the bought and unspent total. I bought 9600 or however many it was on my second acount and only spent the bits I needed at the time, thinking I had years to do so. I've seen the accounting thing mentioned enough times in enough places to believe it's true, but have better things to do with my time than go trawling through year old posts on half a dozen forums.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
The only thing that I can think back to (for me at least) was a comment on the Titan Network from someone saying that NCsoft did the "only counts when spent" when it related to NC Coin/Lineage 2/Aion (which for THOSE games makes sense, as the currency *can* be used between the two games, and there is NO stipend for them either because those games no longer have a subscription option).
They *didn't* say definitively that it *was* done the same method for Paragon Points, but that they assumed that it was (and this might well have been the line that most of the commentators ran with... [1].)
I mean, think about it this way.
You earn 500 points per month (for sake of argument) per month (due to being a subscriber).
You buy 1500 points.
You wait 3 months in total before you spend a dime.
You now have 3000 points, and then decide to buy stuff.
Which points get used up first?
If the points are only treated as "revenue towards a title" when spent, it *IS* important. This is why I am inclined to believe that for the sake of *ease* of doing the transactions (and instead not basically running each points transaction through multiple stages to say "these points came from X, these points came from Y").
Hell, even if it was "bought points are used up first no matter what" would help alleviate the loss (because basically that would mean that mean that if you subbed for the whole duration of freedom, if you had more than 4400 (6050 for Tier 9) points on the account
[1] Just like the idea that NCsoft was not willing to sell for any cost, it has just recently come to light (over on the titan network) that NCsoft were willing to sell the title, but didn't want to let the engine go with the IP (now if this would have been a case of "develop your own title with the IP" or "you can do what you want with the game and engine as it *is* but you *DO NOT* own the engine, so you cannot sell it on" style of thing is not said. [2]
[2] [url=http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,9675.msg139216.html#msg139216]source[/url]
Threadjack, but I'm very curious about why NCSoft would want to keep an engine that's as obsolete as CoH's is.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Who knows. And that is the honest answer here... I have no idea as to why they wouldn't let it go, but then again, with how the original statement was phrased, its hard to say if the engine was able to be used or not.
It could well be that if some of the work from Paragon Studios on other games was done using that engine, it *could* be worthwhile keeping the engine around (and any further work that was done on it) and then possibly working on those extra titles in the upcoming years. So keeping your hands on the engine *would* be of benefit.
As I said in the part that you quoted, Ncsoft could have been willing to license it out to the potential buyers (we have no idea as to how much they were asking for it, could have been $1000 a year for all we know), but it appears that the buyers wanted it lock stock and barrel (Full engine rights and full IP)
Oh, in the above I said that Aion and Lineage 2 do not have a subscription. That is not *exactly* true (my mistake on this case). They do have recurring billing for "coin/prestige packages". However you do not actually receive any coins for it normally (they might run a promotion for bonus NCoin (proper term, my mistake for using the wrong term of NCcoin earlier on) from time to time however)
I'd guess they wanted less competition for WS. Kinda like why they haven't released BnS to NA yet.
Seems the folks over at ESO agree with a lot of the thoughts expressed here in defence of the sub model:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/elder-scrolls-online-defends-subscription-fee-with-regular-significant-content/1100-6418221/
Spurn all ye kindle.
YES! So much win. I'm glad that people are starting to change their views about the Sub model and realizing that F2P is such a money grubbing scam. Makes the cockles of my heart smile. Thank you for posting that Cinnder!
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Nice to read that article. Feels like they're trying to make a good game and a good experience and realizing what a lot of other fans of MMOs realize, yes want the game to make a profit and keep updating regularly, but don't need to be that billion dollar WoW.
Sadly, I have no interest in ESO (art style just isn't to my liking) but hopefully they're able to get their audience.
CoH's subscription perks were insanely awesome after the game went free to play. Some of the perks were what....a free server Xfer each month and like 400 "coins" to spend in the shop each month. Coins that you could save up to spend on the ability to gender swap your toon anytime you wanted, a service that every other MMO offers as a paid one time deal.
I am not saying that CoT needs to offer the server Xfer, but they should take notes from CoH (which we all know they are), and do some of those "outside the box" perks that made CoH different/better than all of the other MMOs.
While this is always subject to change depending on technical capability, the last I had heard from our tech department is that the way "servers" will be handled, it will be largely invisible to players, such that a transfer "perk" would be meaningless. At least, in any sense recognizable from the standpoint of players. Still, I am always keen for more ideas as to what people want to see in a subscription. I am [i]particularly[/i] interested in things that would not [i]work[/i] as one-off microtransactions but would make sense in subscriptions, as I've actually found drawing that line to be a lot harder than I had originally expected it would be. (Nearly everything I can think of or see is something that actually makes more sense as a purchase than a subscription ongoing benefit, but I think I'm missing whole swaths of potential benefits.)
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
To be fair, there isn't really anything that can be done, unless you really want to make the F2P players feel like 2nd class citizens ie locking of mechanics behind subscription only pay walls eg Incarnates in CoX.
I mean, I could even see a method of making *THAT* a purchasable perk although quite possibly on a per character basis.
I think that would probably be the "most balanced" method if you want to do that... not necessarily make stuff always "pay once, get it for the account", but instead do *some* of the things as a per character unlock.
The thing is though, is that because the subscription is *expected* to get access to everything first (or at worst, at the same time as the non subscribers), even if they have to pay for it, you cannot really make stuff as an extra subscription and expect the subscriber to pay it...
And you cannot make the *total* cost of the other "micro" subscriptions higher than the cost of the normal subscription either (nor really warrant charging subscribers of the game an *extra* subscription on top).
I do feel for you in this case... especially when you start comparing stuff to CoX, which also had vet rewards integrated into it, which for some people made the "subscribe to play incarnates" quite an easy choice to *NOT* subscribe for (because they had every other system available to them without a subscription).
It sounds like you are married to the idea of a "normal" subscription, by which I mean pay the proverbial $15 for access to "all of the game".
If we go the route of "micro subscriptions" I think they nullify the reason d'être for the existence of a "normal" subscription.
So I ask @Segev, is your thought to have the coexistence of micro subscriptions and a separate (presumably cheaper) "full subscription"?
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I am hoping - though not yet convinced it's 100% doable - to have microsubscriptions + microtransactions, with no "normal" subscription.
Under this model, ideally, a "normal" subscription would actually be a package of pre-selected microsubscriptions, which can be further customized by choosing extra microsubscriptions or removing some you don't want. Or both.
"I want a stipend of Stars for paying a monthly fee in dollars" would absolutely be a part of a microsubscription model, with added benefit of having it be highly customizable: pick how much you want your stipend to be and therefore how much it will cost you in dollars per month. It will probably be little different - maybe with some sort of accumulating veteran perk - than buying Stars one-off; it just automates the process so you can budget things if you like.
But like I said, it's still in the planning and design stages; I'm looking for what people want in a subscription to see what can be broken down into individual microsubscriptions.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I think that's a great value inclusive approach. I hope this is the way it goes.
Are you talking with the tech team about how the development will be categorized? Is the development resources going to be prioritized evenly so that each micro subscription offers the same relative value? Example.. if there is an expectation of a new costume set every 2 months, is there also the expectation of a new animation set every 3 months, a story release every 4 months (or however the cost per hour schema works out in the end).
I really want the devs to be paid for their time and by setting the customer value system based on that time it creates a quantifiable metric so you can decide what aspect of development needs help (having a sale, deciding why consumers aren't buying and maybe deciding to change what a sub offers)
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Make outfits! Some go into the shop, some go into the game. F2P get the starting ones, subs get any that go into the game.
Don't go "This is a crappy costume set...give it to them free. Make the good one cash shop." go "Make them all good!"
I think the more options the better. Have a "Normal Subscription", Micro-Subscriptions, and F2P. This way you get the most options to make the most money you can. People who can afford the "Normal Subscriptions" will buy those, people who want to spend a little less or have to watch their wallets a little bit more will opt for the Micro-Subscriptions or F2P versions depending on their idea of what would be the best value to them. Don't opt out of the "Normal Subscriptions" just because you think it's outdated. I think more people should go the route that Cinnder's article he posted said. I'm still not 100% sold on this Micro-Subscription thing, but I think I get where you are going with it. I think I can see how it might be more attractive to some people than just F2P or a "Normal Subscription" goes. But I still think you should have the "Normal Subscription" option as well.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
In your scenario, would a "normal subscription" cost less than the aggregate of all of the micro subscriptions?
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Obviously not. The Normal Sub should be 15 to 20 bucks a month. The micro-subs will be cheaper based off of the desired items the purchaser would like to have. F2P would obviously be free. Now how much a person spends in the cash shop of course is completely up to them. As has been proven you can spend way more money in a cash store than you would if you only paid a sub. The threshold for subscriptions seems to be around 15 to 20 bucks a month. After that people just can't seem to justify buying a sub unless they pay for an entire year up front or a lifetime sub, and even then it comes at a somewhat discounted rate.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Personal unofficial opinion
The bundle should be slightly cheaper than the aggregate of the microsubs in it or there's no point in having the bundle.
If there is not a bundle (and i hope there is, I'd much rather spend my time playing than getting the microsubs right), then I'd suggest some scheme like:
Your most expensive n microsubs cost full price
The next most expensive m receive a p% discount
etc
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Hmmm..Segev, does it have to be a question of what wouldn't work as a microtransaction? What if instead the difference between subscriber and f2p access were one of degree? To build on Gangrel's example, access to a new power set or signature story arc could be given for all characters belonging to a subscriber but have to be purchased per-character for f2p.
You mentioned that any stars stipend will be little different from buying them one-off with only a "maybe" regarding some sort of veteran perk, but doesn't that put extra pressure on you to find other ways to make a sub worthwhile? Wouldn't a subscriber discount on Stars and/or additional bonus for veterans be the easiest way for you to show a player the value in subscribing?
The key for me is a model that [I]allows[/I] f2p but [I]encourages[/I] subscription, which could be through any combination of methods folks have mentioned above, including discounts, early access (or even exclusive access), veteran rewards, etc. Some areas can even straddle the line between sub and payable: e.g. if 3 new power sets are released, subscribers could be given access to one at no extra charge and have to buy access to the other via Stars or cash. (Bonus if you let subscribers choose which one they want to get as part of their sub.)
The main reason I want this model is not to short-change MWM, but to offer them a more predictable and long-term income stream, which in turn will allow them to devote more of their time to develop (to quote Pete Hines from that ESO article) "content that is real and significant and it feels like regular and consistent DLC releases" rather than having to allocate resources to making a "funny hat" every week.
The other reason has to do with community. I want the majority of my fellow CoTers to be invested in the world, to be involved in its development, and to be a proponent of its longevity.
Spurn all ye kindle.
One thing I would quite possibly suggest though in this case though is "No veteran rewards".
Or if there are, then I would suggest that "mechanics that are locked behind subscriptions/cash shop purchases" do NOT become free just because you paid enough over the years (ie crafting/inventions/AE stuff)... ie none of the melarky that could happen in CoX where someone who had paid enough over the years could afford to drop their sub because they had unlocked everything "mechanics wise".
We are starting with a clean slate here, there is no need to carry baggage over from CoX here.
IE a tier 8 CoX veteran could quite possibly have no reason to subscribe to the game because they had inventions, AE, Auction house, side switching, alignment merits, global chat, SG forming/membership all unlocked. Their only (potential) limitation would be "number of available characters" and "lack of incarnate access".
Hell, at least even in SWTOR (which some people would say had a horrible F2P conversion) at least *gave* you the option to purchase a "raid" pass (granted only for the week). And even those could be sold on the in game market if the purchaser so desired (not to mention as well that the gear authorisation was not "time limited" unlike the Inventions side for CoX).
You make a very good point. I agree that it would be ironically counterproductive if vet rewards eventually added up to "quit subbing." On the other hand, I think some sort of vet reward is needed to promote loyalty over time.
I'm not sure what the best solution is for this, but I'm thinking maybe it needs to avoid unlocks (as you point out) and perhaps be more of the kind of accumulated discount on Stars (or whatever) that Redlynne suggested.
If there will be vet unlocks, maybe they could be more items of convenience (e.g. special quick travel power) rather than major game features. Or... any such major unlocks could specifically be tied to keeping one's sub active. I know some folks have objected to this (for reasons that still aren't clear to me) -- but as long as it was stated from the outset that any sub perks are [I]rentals[/I] then at least everyone would know what to expect. It would be like access to an airline's Executive Lounge at the airport: you need to stay above x frequent flyer points to retain this perq; if you stop you have to re-accumulate your points to get it back again.
Spurn all ye kindle.
I love the micro subscription model for different aspects of development [costumes, powers (fx/animations), dev created story, trade currency (stars), and experience/character slots were the aspects that I identified] in post 199.. there may be other ways to categorize the development but I'm using these for example for now.
This model will lose its inherent value (the things in it that make microsubscriptions worth having as I note Monetize all development, Player retention and sales metrics. If there is a "buy all the microsubscriptions" option I could see it coming at some discount but not enough so that you only need to buy 3 of 5 of the microsubscriptions..
In my opinion you would need to pay for all 5 of the micro-subscriptions to get the benefit of a "normal subscription". Why? Sales Metrics most importantly. This information is as important and the white blood cell in the lifeblood that is MMO Currency. Metrics help you identify and correct problems with your product, with your marketing, with your pricing.. everything. I expect that MWM wants to be lean when it comes to development and metrics are the best way to trim the fat and have a streamlined plan for product development.
- -
Gangrel, I hear from you that you want loyalty from the customer base and your incentive for this loyalty would be to remove all of the items "earned" when a player stops playing for a subscription. I think the consumer has spoken pretty loudly that they don't like this, particularly when there are games you can go play without needing to pay the subscription. My goal in combating this, while still keeping the value of subscribing, is to offer subscriptions a "rent to own" program so that they can permanently "buy" perks over time with their legacy of holding the subscription (likely only consecutively in my model but not necessarily consecutively).
This is an inherent "veteran/legacy" reward but it's not something gated to be "only for subscribers". Microtransaction players need to be encouraged to buy and keep buying. By locking content away from them you introduce an unneccesary disincentive. It's important to remember that the whole purpose for microtransactions is that they pay MORE and QUICKER than the subscriber with proper marketing.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
That, in a nutshell, is the problem I have with the f2p microtransaction model. The devs have to keep feeding this category of player constantly and quite frequently for the model to be sustainable. That means developing a new funny hat every week or so. Actually, more than that: it would have to be a selection of new funny hats every week, because the first funny hat might not appeal to everyone.
I'd rather regularly contribute a set amount and get "consistent DLC" every few months than a set of 52 funny hats per year. ("Here you go...take this money and don't come back till you've used it to create something awesome.") And I'm convinced this would contribute more to the longevity of the game by making it more amazing at its core rather than just on the surface. Hence I think the true primary goal regarding f2p players should be to convince them that they would much prefer to subscribe.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Pay for a Sub, get 100 (or equivalent CoT cash shop tokens/creds/what have you) Stars. Every three months of continuous subbing they add on 100 Stars. At the end of a year you're at 500 Free Stars! More you sub, the more likely all new content will be free!
Put a break longer than a few days or a week in your sub, you have to start all over on the Free Stars.
There's no reason to debate the existence of micro transactions but I'll repeat they make MORE money. You're willing to tell those players "we don't want your more money that is more than my subscription" then you're being short-sighted. Not to mention that I WANT the devs to continue releasing content to keep the game sustainable. What's the alternative.. the devs stop releasing content?
Micro transactions are not for every MMO but in a game that sells customization and individuality (unlike many of the DnD games) they are VERY important. Elder Scrolls will not have any real sales need to create new/more costumes after the game comes out. They likely won't come out with new power animations except for once in a while. Is that the sales model you want City of Titans to follow?
Finally I will repeat again.. how the revenue is collected and how the revenue is spent are two separate issues. If you don't trust the devs to set up a development schedule that releases the content you want (costumes, story, powers, etc) then take that up with the producers. Having the vast and benefits and revenue of micro-transaction sales far outweighs the tiny cost of creating a "hat". Especially if/when that hat can cover 1/3rd the cost of your entire month's subscription.
- -
Finally, the micro transaction bias does nothing to benefit the game ( or the conversation). You're telling people who gladly pay 40 and 50 dollars at a time to buy "shiny hats" that their money is somehow less valuable than your willingness to spend 15 dollars a month to rent the shiny hats.
If you hate shiny hats then come out and speak about how you want the game to "slow/stop development on shiny hats".
- -
Finally I disagree with the assessment that you should encourage subscriptions over the more profitable (for the same development) micro transaction. The goal should be that "If you like it then put a ring on it".. get the subscription to see all the options you like (and hopefully there are ALOT of options you like) then once you've tasted it you should want to keep it. I think subscriptions should offer a "rent to own" policy so subscribers can keep a small token of their development.. but the rate of which they own the material should be slow enough to encourage the impulse buyer out there to say "I want it for keeps right now" and collect that revenue.
The alternative is that there is zero stipend for subscription and when the sub ends the players lose all access to subscription benefits. And while subscription fans say "yeah pay or get out!" this has a way of turning a once loyal customer away in a way that they won't return. Player exodus is a problem and development ownership (through micro transactions) have been shown as a great stop-loss in the current economy and keep even casual players logging in (and diehard players logging in).
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I am just going to walk away from this thread because I'm tired of going over this same damn debate that only raises my blood pressure and makes me scream obscenities at the monitor of my computer.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
No Jaybezz, what we're saying is micro transaction games SUCK at updates beyond what to sell next on the market. Every F2P game I've played, they've all been the suckie in content updates.
In my experience, Guild Wars 2 has been decent with content updates.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
If I did agree with this statement (which I don't) then the question becomes "Why did those F2P games suck at giving players the development they wanted?"
The answer does not lie solely in "because .. micro transactions that's why". And until someone correctly fleshes out the argument to why collecting more money on smaller chunks of development cannot be revenue spent toward the content development of your liking (which sounds like DLC story content to me.. even tho everyone i played with in CoH constantly asserted that "alts are a good endgame").
I love story content, but it's the single most expensive type of development to create. Also I'm not willing to sign on to the "don't release smaller customizing content" bandwagon. While it is smart for some games to avoid sales based on micro transactions (games that don't really have anything to sell) City of Titans is not that same store model. Make money on peoples desire for individuality and customization and use that money to create story content.
- -
The game will have micro transactions.. saying that the game will "suck" for doing so is short sighted.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
No. Saying it will if it was micro transactions only, it would. :p
Segev,
If the MWM team decides to package optional subscription tiers you may be able to put them in a survey or to a vote on Facebook, Kickstarter, the new forum site, etc. (whatever provides the best venue). That could provide some market research on what should be in the tiers and/or if the tiers are indeed a customer desired option.
Thanks for the smile. I'm sure you were glad to hear that it's not.
That's not what i read from that post, but thank you for clarifying.
- -
The fact that the devs mean to have both sales models means they should be sure to support both models to be successful. I'm hearing what I perceive as a lot of "make subscribers first class citizens and remove the value of micro-transaction players". This sentiment is counterproductive to the bottom line (more money for development).
- -
I want subscriptions to have value, but I don't agree with the sentiment that they should be discounted "get everything" passes unless they're priced as such.
I also don't want players who are subscribers to feel that they are paying for development they can't use/see.
I also want to make it easy for players who do not want to subscribe to continue to be users of the product. Mostly because during the time this player can't afford what they want they will covet what they want.. and when (not if) they have the disposable income they will spend that on this game instead of somewhere else. The idea is to keep them on the hook to buy if/when they can instead of watching them walk out of the store completely. It sounds like the people of this forum are pushing them out the door.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Look at Neverwinter - updates are lots of cosmetic crap that they can make money off and more mounts/companions with different skins but broadly the same abilities, zones without any real story and only repeatable content that you have to grind, so they can sell lockbox keys to shorten that grind.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
No, my idea is this...
Those who don't sub, get what the game starts with.
Next, subs get all new content as part of the sub. Micro-Transactions get the ability to pay for access to the new content or not.
New TF? Subs access it, while MIcro's pay 5 dollars to access it.
New costume set? Subs get it as part of the sub, while Micro's pay 10 dollars.
New zone/section of the city? Subs get it as part of the sub, Micro's pay 25 dollars.
New powerset? Subs get is as part of sub, Micro's pay 25-50 dollars.
Micro's get the ability to pick and choose what new content from the basic package they want to have access to. Subs get access to it all.
Seem's fair, and allows those who like Micro Transactions to have exactly what they want. Free game and they pay for what extras they want.
I would like to clarify where I stand: Although I said that I dislike veteran rewards, it was the permanent system unlock vet rewards that I disliked most about CoX Freedom, because most of the incentive afterwards to just drop your subscription.
Giving subscribers "first access" to content, by giving subscribers a discount from the store coin prices (although possibly not increasing to such an extent as Redlynne would suggest), I can live with.
One thing that annoyed me as well with CoX (although strangely enough not with SWTOR) was that if you subbed, and then stopped subbing, any IO's became "dead weight" on your build (at least until you bought the IO license)
And yet, I bet that most of the players here would drop an "hybrid" MMO where if you stopped subbing, all the gear you had of purple variety had to be replaced with worse items[*].
Now if it was possible for me as a non subscriber to purchase *permanent* system unlocks then sure, you can include them into the sub fee... but giving them as a "reward" for subscribing X amount of time (even if it is years) just rubs me the wrong way.
Hell, I don't even mind *cosmetic* stuff being given away (ie if everyone has mounts but only active subscribers can have X mount for free, non subscribers would have to buy it). If a cash store is available, I don't mind stuff from there being given away as a "vet reward", but if it *cannot* be purchased then it shouldn't be rewarded (even if its a case of "you have to buy it once a month to keep access" (ie the IO/AH licenses would have been a nice giveaway. Now if only they could have been sold on the AH ;) )
Hell, SWTOR even allows raid access to be able to be purchased with weekly passes. It at least gives players the option to *taste* what is there, and if they want to carry on with it (ie incentive to sub if they so desire).
[*] SWTOR *doesn't* do this, it just means that you cannot slot *new* Artifact level gear, what you already have slotted stays and works.
PWE/Cryptic has horrible business practices and a history of not using profit to invest in their game development instead opting for new games' development.
That being said.. Neverwinter is getting DLC releases.
No reason for MWM to follow PWE business practices.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
We agree on the basis of what the difference between a subscriber and a free player are.
We do not agree on the type of subscriptions available. Think all of the examples you cite should be separate micro-subscriptions.
Neither of us really agree on pricing as we don't have a metric for the cost of development for any of the aspects you cite. That being said.. maybe the micro subscriptions are different costs from one another
Crowd Control Enthusiast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnzafqZqFf0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQUAmUq26b8
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
LMAO -- brilliant!!!
Spurn all ye kindle.
Alot of people on here are complaining about how much they should be spending, But me personally I dont care to pay $30 a month. If this game is anywhere close to being as good as COH then ill pay whatever amount. City Of Heroes was only MMO that I played and I support City Of Titans 100%. Count me in to pay $30 to $35 a month lol... Cant Wait
I can't tell whether people are complaining about how much things cost but there's definite discussion about what adds value.
I had the highest veteran rewards in Champions Online and was there from the week of release until i left. I went F2P because it provided more value for the way I play (I don't roll alts). But as far as cost, I consistently spent more $ than the subscriber because I love buying things for the dedicated members of my SG. As long as there are things worth buying, I'll find an excuse to buy (but never rent) them.
I'd much rather buy my friend a $50 character slot with another $50 in microtransactions to customize her character properly than pay for her $15 subscription "this month" because they're hard up. This is the basis of the value proposition as I see it personally.
From the business perspective cost is much easier to recuperate by selling things piecemeal. The only thing that would make a player like me be interested in a subscription model is if it added value to the other microtransactions I buy for others (a discount built over time) and/or the ability to "own" parts of the sub I am renting.. because If I know I am paying for 30 day access to a feature I know that the cost over time value is much more suited to me buying it outright because I want to keep it for the life of the game.. not 30,60, or 90 days.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I think CoH had it right - the "FREEMIUM" model IIRC - Free to Play with Subscriptions. F2P people can buy what they want out of the online store, while for $15 a month Subbers/VIPs get some free stuff and a monthly stipend to spend in the store.
And hopefully, like in COH, the stipend could increase the longer you are subbed - at least at certain monthly/yearly milestones.
I had no issues with paying a sub to CoH because they were releasing a lot of high-quality stuff and the benefits of the sub was worth it. If CoT can do the same I'd gladly spend the same amount on them.
Edit: I really don't think the game should be charging more than the going monthly rate ($10-$15). CoH uber-fans might be willing to play the game for more, but no one else will, and CoT will not be able to make it on rabid fandom alone.
Yes - the normal subscription would be easier for people to process - many people will not want to look through the restaurant menu of micro-sub choices and have to worry about if what they selected will "taste good". More people will likely just hit "normal subscription" if they know it includes everything and you will pick up a bit more cash. But only if it's offered - if it's not, well, you lose out.
Or instead of a discount, some other benefit, like a slightly larger stipend to spend in the store - or something along those lines,
I think people forget that plenty of F2P complained about CoH's F2P system. I remember complaints of "I can't run incarnate?! I'm less super because I'm F2P?!"
I say this, because people keep saying CoH had the best model. No matter how it's done, F2Pers will some how feel like they have less.
So that's why I say, subs get everything, F2Ps get the basic package and have to pay extra for everything new added. New costume set? 20 dollars! New content? 30 dollars!
As a dedicated subber to CoH and an off-again-on-again subber to CO (F2P for a year. Sub for a year. On off after that. Permanently off now, though. I'm through with it.) I have to say that I enjoyed both games' F2P models, though CoH had it better in terms of Vet rewards. The thing I think most F2P people didn't like on CO is that ANYTHING new that comes out, they have to pay for. Didn't matter that the subbers did as well, oh no. Apparently to many, F2P meant there would be no buying anything at all.
I personally believe that the main difference between subs and free-players should be a difference in WHEN people get to experience things. New costume set? Free players will get to use it about 6 months after it appears, OR they can buy it for like 10 bucks and get it now. Brand new TF? Same deal. It's kinda like real life. You can buy a movie On-Demand for a few dollars, or wait until it's in circulation on every channel ever.
[B]Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...[/B]
Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain
[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg[/img]
I find discouraging non-subscribers to buy micro transactions counter-productive business. So many of the measures being presented in this thread do precisely that. While I'm no longer advocating for a micro transaction only model; the idea that we should sell a completely un-attractive product is absurd.
Micro transactions should have some sales benefit over Subscriptions (macro or micro).
Subscriptions (macro or micro) should have some sales benefit over Micro transactions.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Well - not to sound cruel or anything, but they SHOULD have less if they are playing the game for FREE. That's the whole thing with free to play; yeah you get the bare bones, maybe the occasional free thing thrown your way, but you have to pay to get much of the new shiny stuff - otherwise what's the point of subbing - in any form?
Don't know if I'd charge that much for the new stuff but this is the way it should be.
The sales benefit is they're not paying a monthly fee. They're piece mealing it. They don't want to run that new TF that just got released? They don't pay for it. Save themselves 5 dollars.
Devs release a new costume set? They don't like it? They don't buy it.
New zone? Only need to pay for it if they want to go there.
While this is valuable for metrics it goes against the company's objectives. They want to make free to play ATTRACTIVE to pay. This isn't a benefit to free to play but is rather a hinderance in the system.
I feel like the consumers of digital products in the current market are being naive if they think that having a free to play option that is completely not attractive to monetization is worth having.
I hear the concerns of players about how businesses treat free to play and want to try to respond to them here so the devs can understand what is being complained about and what we hope to avoid.
1) Short Term Gains - so far the F2P model has been used to create short term gains to a digital product either to increase it's base share for sale or to fund another game. This is a business practice that hurts the game's long term goal. We players want to be assured that the revenue we give to your game are being reinvested in our game's long term future.
2) Gambling - F2P has somehow become synonymous with casino behavior. People want to buy products directly and pay a fair price for what they expect to possess. No chance boxes for anything that can't be bought outright.
3) No Pay to Win - This is hard to explain because in many MMO spaces "winning" has different metagame meanings. Pay to progress is generally the new term for the RIGHT way to monetize players desires to reach a goal more quickly but at any point along that player's journey, they should be treated as though they were one of the rest of them. In other words if I pay to get an XP gain and reach level 20 rather quickly I still should be treated as a lvl 20 character.. At no point should I be able to pay to feel stronger than a level 20 character at level 20.
4) No bait and switch - This comes in many forms but let people know what they're getting when they buy something and don't tell them after the purchase that it loses value or does not perform as expected it just plain wrong.
- -
Free to Play is and should be attractive. Both to players and to developers/companies. But as with any emerging business practice it is easy to think the profit is the highest priority, but as you hear from the many voices in this thread customer satisfaction is the highest priority. I want the subscribing customers to be satisfied, and as a F2P customer I hope you consider my satisfaction with equal weight.
Here's a few great articles that I find helpful on the subject:
http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.php
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/213437/Design_for_player_relationships_in_freetoplay_games_reap_the_rewards.php
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Some of those complaints also came from premium players as well... they started off as F2P and spent money on the store. Doesn't matter how much they spent, they were now viewed as "Premium" players, and not as F2P..
I can see where you are coming from here. But I think that the bulk of the problem was that as a *non* subscriber, there was no possible way for them to even *try* out incarnate content without subscribing.
Would it have been a total grind fest for them? Would it have been something that could entice them to subscribe, who knows. There was no option without spending $15 down to try it out (not to mention as well that subscribing when you still had any licenses running wasted cash as well)
1) Players can buy permanent equipment access unlock separately (1000 Cartel coints/character, 2400 for the account) (This is purely for "purple quality gear" nothing else)
2) Players can *also* buy weekly passes to give themselves unlimited access to warzones, flashpoints, operations. Otherwise they are limited to 3 flashpoints/warzones a week (0 operations a week normally). Even preferred players get treated this way.
So you might be thinking "but what is the difference"... the difference is that in SWTOR, the cost to unlock stuff is a one off cost for that character. I buy the "Purple gear" unlock... I don't have to pay it again for that character (or the account) next month.
SWTOR is also a little bit different to CoX in that these unlocks can also be sold/traded on the ingame market as well.
Which is why (in my mind) it was better to give "newbies" in CoX actual influence instead of enhancements to help increase their cash flow, because you *couldn't* guarantee that the new player would have the *ability* to sell an item on the market (SWTOR F2P can. They are just limited to 5 slots at any point in time).
I guess the problem all comes down to the fact that *IF* Incarnate access was "sellable" separately for a one off cost, the complaints, whilst they would have still been around, would have been less.
Hell, would YOU have paid $15 a month to play incarnate content if you had already unlocked everything else via vet tree spending?
They had to pay to unlock other stuff. All they had to do to try out incarnate stuff was pay 15 bucks to see if having a sub was worth the incarnate content.
That was their way of testing out to see if they liked incarnate stuff. If they didn't think it was worth the sub, they were free to unsub.
True - but then I also find it understandable why they locked some things off behind a subscription wall; you have to make subscriptions more desirable in some way - it's better for the company. More monthly subscriptions mean a steadier cash flow rather than a wildly unpredictable monthly or bi-monthly spike here and there.
Should incarnate content have been that "carrot-on-a-stick" in CoH? I don't know - I can see both sides of the debate. But there [I]should[/I] be a carrot for full monthly subscriptions - the game would be better off for it.
True, but the cost difference though is quite a bit. Want to try out the IO system? Stump up for the license, it was 160 points (so about $2). Want to try out the AH system? Same price.
Want to try out Incarnate? Stump up $15
Now, the thing with the SWTOR system, is that although you have to pay for the license *weekly* it is an option. And the subscriber gets *unlimited* access to them all included.
Unlimited access/few to no restrictions (so unlimited Incarnate/Trial/Raid access) compared to having to buy the week long pass.
Hell, before Aion went *100%* F2P, Subscribers would suffer a reduced timer lock out from end game dungeons whilst the former subscribers got a longer lock out, and F2Pers had an even longer lock out.
So that was an incentive to subscribe (if you played enough)... the unlimited access to stuff whilst the F2P/Premium would still be able to do it, but have a far slower progress (overall).
The current penciled in model is relatively straightforward. But first let me explain the assumptions:
1) F2P games will continue to dominate the market
2) Content growth will be key
3) User generated content will be a major driving force
To meet this, the current model is that subscriptions get two features over and above non-subscriptions:
1) They get a stipend for the cash store equal to greater than the subscription cost.
2) They get early access to features before non-subscribers. (new missions, powersets, costume pieces, archetypes, etc)
Now, the model for the cash store is for convenience, not for lockout. The example we used in the design was the Cape mission. Yes, it is fun to run the first few times, but after the 50th, you get tired. Also, that you could not have a cape before 20 was an annoyance. In our model, yes, you can run the missions/badges/needs to get the particular costume piece or unlockable content (ie Incarnates) on a per-character basis, or you can buy a global unlock. The goal is so that no in-game items in the cash store cannot be unlocked through playing the game.
The other thing which can be purchased are slots, be that character slots, auction house slots, crafting storage, etc.
The last item we have is advertising. In-game advertisements are planned on being implemented, but not limited to major companies or sponsors. Want to advertise your super group, your auctions, missions etc, there will be an opportunity for you.
The most successful F2P models in the industry do just this, the cash store offers convenience.
By having a stipend tied to subscription gives an incentive to subscribe, even if you do not utilize all of your funds, or any, for a period of time. The stipend would be just cash store funds, stored for when you do want to use them. One idea we have kicked around is to be able to send these funds to another player, so you could play as a family and send a few Rae to the kids.
But it also means if you do not subscribe, you are not locked out. It also means if you have to stop subscribing you do not lose anything unlocked either through the store or through play. So, we fully expect to get a flush of 1 month subscriptions when we go early access to new Archetypes and powersets, as characters made using the new bits will still be available, even if people do not renew their subscription in order to make more.
This is all, of course, very preliminary. Feedback will help shape it, so if it is a good idea, or bad, any points, let us know.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
To me content is the greatest factor of growth, however community/social interaction is the greatest factor to retention.
You attract initial players because of the systems you have in place that are attractive. You keep them when they forge bonds with other players. You satisfy them by giving them more to do and new ways to do said things.
I will also add that I think systems should NOT change and people don't stay for new/different systems. I recommend creating an expandable system base that does not require much change. For example, adding vehicle combat to a combat system based on avatar combat, or completely changing how that avatar combat works should come only at extreme necessity.
Can you explain the "early access" as you perceive it? The idea of waiting to access content that I'm already paying more money for is simply unattractive. But perhaps you're talking about a test server or something I am not thinking about.
Do I really want to play a game where half of my SG cannot access new content when it's released even when they are willing to pay for it? You release a new costume/weapon/animation that I had been waiting for and for some reason I can't pay for it? I don't understand the logic because if the goal is revenue then you should not discourage non-subscribers from spending money.
Free to play is built around player impulse, but this impulsion comes at higher cost. Seeing the subscribing players get access to some new development should make a non-subscriber's desire to buy all the greater. Subscriptions are basically a discounted rate; as much as I love a coupon, I'm sure the local retailer wants me to pay full price.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Thanks for giving us an official -- if preliminary -- ruling on this, Doc. Sounds like an ok compromise so far. The 2 statements that make me feel good about this are "content growth will be key" and "no in-game items in the cash store cannot be unlocked through playing the game."
A few questions:
1) Will there be any sort of veteran reward program to promote and honour loyalty?
2) Will the early-access features be included in the sub, or will they still have to be purchased -- just available on the store for subbers before they are available to f2pers?
3) What do you mean by "User generated content will be a major driving force"? As much as I enjoyed some of the very high quality player-generated content in AE in CoX, I never felt they were events in the "real" CoX world. Will there be efforts to integrate the best player-made content directly into the world?
4) Are you still considering Segev's idea of the "configurable" subscription?
5) Just to check: does "no in-game items in the cash store cannot be unlocked through playing the game" mean that anything sold in the store will also be accessible through in-game actions without having to make a purchase? i.e. no Black Wolf Pet locked inside a Super Pack?
6) Re: " send a few Rae to the kids" -- are you going to be naming the in-game currency after MWM's dedicated PR guru? :-)
Spurn all ye kindle.
See, this is the kind of feedback needed. Thank you.
Another option is simply to offer subscribers access to the beta server.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
\o/ Woo! Nice to see that MWM shares a train of thought with me on the differences between Subs and Non-Subs.
That being said, has there been any talk of what a person is when they stop paying a sub but continue to play? Many games I know will give SOME privileges to "Premium Players" like more character slots than a purely F2P and less chat restrictions.. though from the looks of it, there will be no need for such things.
[B]Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...[/B]
Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain
[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg[/img]
Pages